ArticleJMIR AI2025
Training Language Models for Estimating Priority Levels in Ultrasound Examination Waitlists: Algorithm Development and Validation.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease Phenotypes Among Adults: 2-Stage Contrastive Learning Method.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ultrasound examinations, while valuable, are time-consuming and often limited in availability. Consequently, many hospitals implement reservation systems; however, these systems typically lack prioritization for examination purposes. Hence, our hospital uses a waitlist system that prioritizes examination requests based on their clinical value when slots become available due to cancellations. This system, however, requires a manual review of examination purposes, which are recorded in free-form text. We hypothesized that artificial intelligence language models could preliminarily estimate the priority of requests before manual reviews. Objective: This study aimed to investigate potential challenges associated with using language models for estimating the priority of medical examination requests and to evaluate the performance of language models in processing Japanese medical texts. Methods: We retrospectively collected ultrasound examination requests from the waitlist system at Keio University Hospital, spanning January 2020 to March 2023. Each request comprised an examination purpose documented by the requesting physician and a 6-tier priority level assigned by a radiologist during the clinical workflow. We fine-tuned JMedRoBERTa, Luke, OpenCalm, and LLaMA2 under two conditions: (1) tuning only the final layer and (2) tuning all layers using either standard backpropagation or low-rank adaptation. Results: We had 2335 and 204 requests in the training and test datasets post cleaning. When only the final layers were tuned, JMedRoBERTa outperformed the other models (Kendall coefficient=0.225). With full fine-tuning, JMedRoBERTa continued to perform best (Kendall coefficient=0.254), though with reduced margins compared with the other models. The radiologist's retrospective re-evaluation yielded a Kendall coefficient of 0.221. Conclusions: Language models can estimate the priority of examination requests with accuracy comparable with that of human radiologists. The fine-tuning results indicate that general-purpose language models can be adapted to domain-specific texts (ie, Japanese medical texts) with sufficient fine-tuning. Further research is required to address priority rank ambiguity, expand the dataset across multiple institutions, and explore more recent language models with potentially higher performance or better suitability for this task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.